Browsing named entities in Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 2. (ed. Frank Moore). You can also browse the collection for Lane or search for Lane in all documents.

Your search returned 6 results in 4 document sections:

Providence may preserve for us and for posterity, out of the wreck of a broken Union, the priceless principles of constitutional liberty and self-government. Mr. Lane (Ind.) said he wanted to know if the President had not saved the country, by prompt action. He sanctioned all done, and the people sanctioned it, and he sanctioaphed that President Lincoln's Congress would not be allowed to meet here on the 4th of July. Mr. Breckinridge said he supposed the senator alluded to him. Mr. Lane replied that he did. Mr. Breckinridge replied that his personal relations with the senator precluded him from believing that he would do any thing of the kind armed men, was, like other charges, totally false. And he had been informed by the governor of Kentucky that the charge in respect to him was equally false. Mr. Lane then proceeded to defend the suppression of certain traitorous newspapers, disarming the people in rebellion, and other acts which the senator from Kentucky deem
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 2. (ed. Frank Moore), Doc. 114.-the Cherokees and the war. (search)
te the salutations of friendship. I am, sir, very respectfully, your Excellency's obedient servant, John Ross, Principal Chief of Cherokee Nation. Feb. 22, 1861. A correspondence was more recently opened between the rebel commander of Fort Smith and Ross. The letter of the former exhibits the solicitude with which the rebels of Arkansas await the attitude of the Cherokees:-- Headquarters, Fort Smith, May 15, 1861. sir:--Information has reached this post to the effect that Senator Lane, of Kansas, is now in that State raising troops to operate on the western borders of Missouri and Kansas. As it is of the utmost importance that those intrusted with the defence of the Western frontier of this State should understand the position of the Indian tribes, through whose territory the enemy is likely to pass, I feel it to be my duty, as commanding officer at this post, and in that capacity representing the State of Arkansas and the Southern Confederacy, of which she is a membe
that I had advocated the election to the Presidency of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, on the ground that he was a good Union man. I wish we could now hear his eloquent voice in favor of the old Government of our fathers, and in vindication of the Stars and Stripes, that have been borne in triumph everywhere. I hold in my hand a document which was our text-book in the campaign. It is headed Breckinridge and Lane Campaign Document No. 16. Who are the disunionists? Breckinridge and Lane the true Union candidates. It contains an extract which I will read from the Senator's address on the removal of the Senate from the old to the new Chamber. I would to God he was as good a Union man to-day as I think he was then: Such is our country; ay, and more — far more than my mind could conceive or my tongue could utter. Is there an American who regrets the past? Is there one who will deride his country's laws, pervert her Constitution, or alienate her people? If there be such
nemy, seeking to advance upon us every hour, and talk about nice questions of constitutional construction as to whether it is war or merely insurrection? No, sir. It is our duty to advance, if we can; to suppress insurrection; to put down rebellion; to dissipate the rising; to scatter the enemy; and when we have done so, to preserve in the terms of the bill, the liberty, lives, and property of the people of the country, by just and fair police regulations. I ask the Senator from Indiana, (Mr. Lane,) when we took Monterey, did we not do it there? When we took Mexico, did we not do it there? Is it not a part, a necessary and indispensable part, of war itself, that there shall be military regulations over the country conquered and held? Is that unconstitutional? I think it was a mere play of words that the Senator indulged in when he attempted to answer the Senator from New York. I did not understand the Senator from New York to mean any thing else substantially but this, that the